Old Sexism in Cricket Journalism, New Cruelty on Social Media: The Hidden Battle to Silence Women in Sports Media

The first time an experienced female cricket journalist walked into the press box at Mumbai's Wankhede Stadium, the moment represented both a professional milestone and an uncomfortable encounter with the realities of a male-dominated industry. India were playing England in a one-day international. Andrew Flintoff's shirt-twirling celebration, England's five-run victory and Sourav Ganguly's irritation became familiar images in cricket history. Inside the press box, however, another contest was unfolding, one that had no scoreboard. As one of only two women among the journalists, she had to establish her professional credibility in an environment where male colleagues dominated the conversation. More than two decades later, the nature of that struggle has changed. The boundaries of newspaper offices and television studios have disappeared, and a female journalist's comments can now reach millions of mobile phones. Alongside appreciation, those phones can deliver sexual harassment, racial abuse, political accusations and even threats to life. Cricket journalism has changed with technology, but sexism has not disappeared. Social media has made an old problem faster, more personal and relentless.

Experienced cricket journalist Anjali Doshi has brought this transformation into focus through her account of the Indian cricket media environment. Published on November 8, 2026, her first-person article documents the long history of gender discrimination in cricket journalism and its increasingly vicious digital form. Doshi has covered major cricket events including the 2026 World Cup, the 2026-08 Monkeygate series, the 2026 T20 World Cup and the 2026 World Cup. She has worked across newspapers, digital publications and television, served as cricket editor at NDTV 24x7, interviewed Shane Warne, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar, and edited a Tendulkar publication for Wisden. Her professional experience and recognition have never prevented online attackers from targeting her gender, appearance and personal life instead of engaging with her arguments.

From traditional newsroom discrimination to digital harassment

The barriers facing women in cricket journalism existed long before social media. Newspaper editorial departments, press boxes, television broadcasts and pitch-side interviews have all been environments in which women's professional competence has been questioned. A male journalist is generally assessed through his analysis, accuracy and cricket knowledge. A female journalist may be expected to establish both her professional ability and her right to be present. Her clothes, voice, appearance and personal relationships can become subjects of discussion. The same professional mistake can therefore attract a harsher response when made by a woman.

Doshi's early career illustrates a subtle form of this discrimination. While working for a local newspaper, male colleagues repeatedly praised the knowledge and talent of her predecessor. Although these remarks were not direct insults, they created an atmosphere of comparison for a new journalist. Doshi eventually earned the editor's confidence through her work and established herself in cricket journalism. Professional progress, however, did not eliminate the prejudices surrounding her.

In 2026, she wrote for Wisden India about the male gaze and sexism in IPL coverage. She questioned the use of pitch-side presenters who had limited knowledge of cricket. Her argument raised a broader question about whether women in cricket broadcasting were being assessed through professional competence or visual appeal. Some responses accused her of being jealous of glamorous presenters, mocked her feminism and suggested that she resented women who had obtained more attractive jobs.

At the time, such comments were relatively limited. Readers could respond to newspaper articles, but they did not have the same immediate access to journalists' personal lives. Television presenters could finish their programmes, return home and begin again the following day. That separation provided a degree of protection.

Digital platforms have dismantled that distance. A few minutes from a television programme can be published online and reach thousands of strangers almost instantly. Viewers may disagree with a journalist's analysis, while other users turn the discussion into a stream of personal attacks. Increasingly, the content of an argument becomes less important than the identity of the person expressing it.

The economics of reels and the disappearance of context

The commercial structure of cricket media is an important part of this transformation. Newspapers, extended television discussions and analytical programmes once dominated cricket journalism. Instagram, TikTok and YouTube now compete for audience attention through short-form content. Influencers have become powerful voices alongside traditional broadcasters and journalists.

This shift is driven partly by impressions, views, shares and engagement. Extracting the most controversial one or two minutes from a longer discussion can deliver an audience far larger than the original programme. Editorial teams consequently have an incentive to select material that generates immediate reactions. The context, qualifications and reasoning contained in the full discussion can disappear.

Doshi encountered this environment when she returned to cricket after a break as co-host of Wisden's new programme, The Scoop. She noticed the growing influence of social media creators, the prominence of Instagram and TikTok, and the constant outrage within Indian cricket's online communities. Longer discussions were increasingly transformed into short reels that acted as trailers for the main programme.

The important insight is that online harassment cannot be explained solely through the behaviour of a handful of abusive users. The economic incentives behind digital content can also contribute to its spread. When success is measured primarily by the number of times a video is viewed, material that generates anger can become more valuable. A provocative clip may travel faster than a measured explanation. The context disappears, leaving journalists more exposed to hostile interpretations.

That does not mean every reel or short video encourages abuse. Short-form content can introduce cricket analysis to new audiences. The problem arises when editing removes the central meaning of a statement, isolates controversy and leaves the journalist unsupported when harassment follows. Treating reach as the only measure of success makes these risks more serious.

When cricket politics becomes a personal safety issue

Politics and national identity have long influenced Indian cricket. Relations between India and Pakistan, international participation and the selection of players for franchise competitions have repeatedly generated controversy. Increasingly, however, political sensitivities are being used as weapons in personal attacks.

Doshi's account highlights the controversy surrounding Sunil Gavaskar's comments about Pakistani cricketer Abrar Ahmed being selected by Sunrisers Leeds, an Indian-owned team in The Hundred. Gavaskar wrote that purchasing Pakistani players could indirectly lead to the deaths of Indian soldiers and civilians. Doshi questioned the political implications of that argument. Her concern was that turning a franchise's overseas recruitment decision into a national-security issue unnecessarily politicised a sporting transaction.

The response to her comments became deeply personal. Instead of addressing her argument, online users called her a traitor, attacked her private life and used sexually degrading language. Some accused her of obtaining employment through relationships with powerful men. Others targeted her appearance and clothing. One message even expressed the hope that she would be stabbed in London, linking the threat to Abrar Ahmed.

Such messages cannot reasonably be dismissed as ordinary online trolling. They combine misogyny, political polarisation and racism. The journalist's gender becomes a weapon, political disagreement becomes a personal threat, and skin colour and colonial history become sources of abuse.

Cricket authorities therefore have responsibilities beyond maintaining discipline on the field. Franchises, broadcasters and governing bodies must recognise that the safety of journalists is part of the professional environment surrounding the sport. Journalists have the right to question the political implications of public statements. Fans have the right to disagree. Threats and sexual harassment, however, are not legitimate expressions of free speech.

The wider pattern of abuse against women in sport

Doshi's experience is not isolated. Former England cricketer and commentator Alex Hartley and cricket presenter Melinda Farrell have described similar problems. Their professional backgrounds differ, but the reactions they receive after expressing opinions reveal a wider pattern.

Hartley, a member of England's 2026 Women's World Cup-winning team, questioned the timing of Brendon McCullum's departure as Test coach. Her criticism during the first women's Test at Lord's generated an intense online response. Her Instagram direct messages included threats of rape and other extreme abuse. The experience initially discouraged her from speaking openly, and she eventually deleted her X account.

Hartley has explained that she now thinks much more carefully before publishing an opinion. She gives herself time to consider an argument and avoids reading comments while working on broadcasting assignments. More recently, a current cricketer sent her an Instagram message describing her commentary as poor. Hartley believes a male commentator expressing similar views would have been unlikely to receive such a personal message.

Melinda Farrell has also experienced doubts about whether she belonged in cricket media alongside her male colleagues. While those early comments have gradually faded, online harassment, trolling and stalking have become growing concerns. She has observed that male journalists are also criticised online, but the attacks against women are more likely to be sexualised and directed at their appearance or private lives.

Farrell's experience with the signing of New Zealand cricketer Scott Kuggeleijn by Hampshire illustrates the difficulty of discussing sensitive issues. Kuggeleijn faced allegations of rape and indecent assault in 2026 and was acquitted following a retrial in 2026 after a hung jury had failed to reach a verdict in the original proceedings. Farrell discussed the concerns raised by the case and the club's decision. She subsequently worried about becoming a target of online abuse.

Farrell believes that avoiding the publication of short clips from longer discussions may have reduced her exposure. This is an important observation for digital journalism. A full programme gives audiences the opportunity to understand the argument. A short isolated clip can change the way a statement is interpreted. Content length and editing decisions therefore influence both audience reach and the safety of the person speaking.

Is silence the greatest victory for online harassment?

The most significant long-term damage caused by online harassment is not always visible. A threat or abusive message can be documented and reported. The number of times a journalist subsequently avoids expressing an opinion, abandons a controversial subject or excessively edits her own arguments is much harder to measure.

This self-censorship can gradually restrict professional independence. If a female journalist believes that discussing politics or social issues will threaten her personal safety, she may decide to avoid those subjects. Audiences then lose analysis that could help them understand the wider social realities of cricket.

Cricket journalism must therefore be understood more broadly. Its responsibilities extend beyond runs, wickets, team selection and tournament results. Player recruitment, franchise ownership, broadcasting language, audience behaviour and social relationships outside the ground are also part of the sport. Reducing women's participation would make cricket coverage less complete.

A global survey by the International Federation of Journalists found that nearly two-thirds of female journalists experience online abuse and harassment. The findings suggest that a female journalist is harassed online every 30 seconds. The survey does not focus exclusively on cricket, but its implications are relevant to sports journalism. Online abuse of women in cricket is part of a wider professional problem.

IPL entertainment, skin colour and commercial representation

The discussion of sexism in cricket extends beyond the treatment of journalists. It also concerns the representation of women in sporting entertainment. Doshi's criticism of IPL cheerleaders raises questions about the commercial and cultural assumptions behind their presence. She has questioned why white women continue to dominate this form of entertainment and how that representation relates to India's longstanding colourism.

In a society with a long history of discrimination based on skin tone, the continued prominence of predominantly Caucasian cheerleaders deserves scrutiny. However, the professional independence and employment rights of cheerleaders must also be respected. Women should be free to choose their occupations and clothing. The criticism should focus on commercial structures that sell women's physical appearance as the principal attraction rather than recognising their professional skills.

The National Football League provides a useful comparison. Eight of its 32 teams have discontinued cheerleading programmes. Some owners have expressed discomfort with what they regard as sexist and degrading representations of women dancing in revealing clothing on the sidelines. The comparison demonstrates that established sporting entertainment models are also being reconsidered internationally.

After 18 editions of the IPL, the persistence of similar representations should not be dismissed as an unquestionable tradition. Franchises and broadcasters should discuss working conditions, professional respect and representation openly. Journalists who raise these questions deserve reasoned responses rather than personal attacks.

Where does institutional responsibility begin?

It is easy to place the responsibility for online harassment on the journalist. Women are told to avoid reading comments, reduce their social media activity or refrain from discussing controversial subjects. Such advice leaves the underlying problem untouched. Journalists depend on digital platforms for audience engagement, programme promotion, interviews and professional networking. Asking them to withdraw can effectively restrict their careers.

News organisations have the first responsibility. When a female journalist receives online threats, employers should provide accessible reporting procedures, preserve evidence, offer security assistance and arrange legal advice where necessary. Editorial teams must also maintain ethical standards when selecting clips from digital programmes. Context should be preserved, and institutions should publicly support journalists when coordinated harassment begins.

Social media companies have a second responsibility. They need effective responses to sexual threats, rape threats, racist abuse and attempts to compromise personal safety. Accepting user reports is insufficient. Platforms need procedures for identifying repeat offenders and coordinated attacks, providing timely decisions and explaining moderation outcomes. Greater transparency is also needed about the algorithms that amplify provocative content.

Cricket boards, leagues and franchises have a third responsibility. Criticism of players, former cricketers and administrative decisions should not become a personal dispute. Media workers need safe working environments, clear venue-security procedures and appropriate assistance when stalking or physical harassment occurs. When online threats create a real-world security risk, organisations should be prepared to work with law enforcement.

Players and former cricketers also have influence. Their public statements carry greater weight than ordinary fan comments. When a prominent former captain turns a franchise recruitment decision into a national-security argument, the resulting political reaction can be significant. Similarly, personal attacks on journalists can encourage sections of an audience to behave in the same way. Players should keep disagreements focused on arguments and clearly reject harassment of female journalists.

The counterargument: criticism is not automatically harassment

An important distinction must be maintained. Every criticism of a female journalist cannot be labelled sexism. Audiences have the right to challenge inaccurate analysis, question evidence and demand corrections. Strong disagreement is part of cricket's emotional culture. However, criticism and harassment are fundamentally different.

Questioning the accuracy, evidence or reasoning of an argument is legitimate criticism. Targeting the speaker's body, sexuality, relationships, ethnicity or personal safety is harassment. Failing to preserve this distinction creates two problems. Genuine abuse allegations can lose credibility, while professional accountability becomes weaker.

Protecting women journalists does not mean placing them beyond criticism. It means ensuring that they can participate in the same evidence-based professional debate as their male colleagues.

There is also another side to the digital transformation. Social platforms have opened traditional media to new voices. Young female journalists, independent cricket analysts and people from underrepresented communities can build their own audiences. Those who once struggled to secure newspaper or television opportunities can now publish their work independently. That opportunity should not be dismissed. The same infrastructure, however, is being used to harass them. The answer is to create safer participation, not to abandon digital media.

The future of cricket journalism

Discussions about cricket's future generally focus on emerging talent, broadcasting rights, franchise revenue and international scheduling. The people who will report on the sport, and the conditions in which they work, deserve equal attention. If female journalists continue to face sexual threats, political abuse and personal humiliation, the diversity of cricket coverage will suffer. Young women may reconsider entering the profession. Experienced reporters may leave or reduce their public engagement.

This is a loss for the entire cricket community. Female journalists bring perspectives that are often neglected in male-dominated discussions. Their work can expand coverage of player welfare, women's cricket, professional recognition, broadcasting representation, racism and audience culture. Without those voices, cricket journalism risks becoming narrower and less representative.

Years of watching cricket have taught me that the contest on the field has rules, officials, disciplinary procedures and defined limits. The contest outside the boundary often has none of those protections. A match ends. A press conference finishes. Stadium lights go out. Yet abusive messages can continue appearing on a journalist's phone long after the final delivery.

Cricket's popularity depends on the passion of its audience. That passion must leave room for disagreement, questions and difficult criticism. When a female journalist receives threats of rape or murder in response to an opinion, the credibility of cricket's public conversation is damaged. Technology has made journalism faster, brought audiences closer and created opportunities for new voices. The next task is to make that environment accountable and safe.

Will the broadcasters and franchise competitions of the coming years measure only views and impressions, or will they also measure the safety of the journalists whose work helps create that audience? That is the question facing the next generation of cricket media. Women entering the press box today should not have to repeat the same struggle for acceptance that their predecessors faced two decades ago. As women's participation becomes increasingly normal on the field, their voices must become equally secure and independent in the newsroom.